Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shell Kinney (talk | contribs) at 01:40, 25 June 2011 (→Arbitrator views and discussion: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 14 Dec 2024 04 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Requests for amendment

Request to amend prior case: the last record of my block log

Initiated by Mbz1 (talk) at 15:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


List of users affected by or involved in this amendment


Amendment 1

  • My block log
  • Modify the last record of my block log by removing the list of bans.

Statement by Mbz1

  • I am not asking for a block review.
  • I am not asking for removing a whole record from my block log
  • I am only asking for editing the last record of my block log which now states "19:27, 27 December 2010 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) unblocked "Mbz1 (talk | contribs)" ‎ (has agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPI, AE for 6 mos, tkng bvir wrs to only 1 editor)", in order to remove the list of unwarranted bans.
  • I agreed on these bans myself, because it was a condition of my unblocking. I agreed on these bans because I could not care less about contributing to any of these boards. I did not know these bans will be added to my block log, and would be used to harass me a few months later, after they were lifted, and with me not contributing to any of the boards in spite they were lifted. I believe we have to establish 2 things in this request:
  1. Is this a common practice to add bans to a block log? These bans are humiliating, they damage my reputation even now 3 months after they were lifted. Is this what a block log should be used for?
  2. Were these bans warranted in a first place?

I'd like to stop on #2 please:

My contributions to AN/I two months prior to my ban
My contributions to AN two months prior to my ban
My contributions to SPI two months prior to my ban
  • I seldom file SPI. All, but one SPI I filed were concerning User:Franklin.vp and its socks. All of them were confirmed.
  • A single bad SPI I filed was this one. I filed it not to harass anybody, but in trying to defend myself. It was filed in a hurry, it was wrong, but it was not filed in a bad faith.
My contributions to AE two months prior to my ban
  • I initiated a request about a user. It was a valid request that was closed, when I got blocked and only because I got blocked although the request had absolutely nothing to do either with my block or even with the topic of AE request. The user against whom the request was initiated was blocked and topic banned a month later. He is topic banned now too.
Conclusion

So as you see from the above I have proven that except a single bad SPI request I have never abused any of the boards for at least two month prior to my bans. The bans were unfair, unwarranted, humiliating. I believe that ArbCom's prestige will benefit from removing the mention of these bans from my block log. Thanks.

Responses
Response to SirFozzie

SirFozzie, thank you for your comment. I am editing under my real name, which is displayed at most of thousands of images I uploaded to wikipedia. The bans listed in my block log are hurting me a lot not only here on wikipedia, but in a real life as well. Could you imagine what people are to think about me because of these bans? I believe I have proven the bans were unwarranted. What wrong will it do, if the list of these unwarranted bans that should have never been added to my block log in the first place are removed from my block log? I understand it is not what is normally done, but it it will be a right thing to do. Besides I do not believe that even warranted bans should be listed in a block log.

about tarc's comment
  • according to this tarc's comment should not be discarded for arbitration) cases. tarc made a few very bad PA against me on Wikipedia review. I hoped (I am not sure what gave me such hope) that tarc will exercise some dignity and refrain from commenting here. I was mistaking.
  • tarc was the main player in making me blocked (I am talking about this very block). As a matter of fact tarc uses every opportunity to bite me any time it sees my name. ".I've only left supporting comments in the many, many places where complaints have been filed against mbz."
  • Also may I please ask you to note that this post is not about me and not even about review of my block. It is only about editing (not removing, but editing) a single record in my block log. Besides tark's statement is false as usually. Rd232 suggested a dispute resolution for my block log here and here
  • tarc forgot that it is not me who is commenting on its arbitration case, but just the other way around.
  • Once again this request is not about me, and not about my block reviews. It is only about single particular and very unusual record that should not have been added to the block log. I am only asking to change it to 19:27, 27 December 2010 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) unblocked "Mbz1 (talk | contribs)" ‎
Response to Coren.

The list of these bans hurts me in a real life. I am not saying they were listed in my block log in a bad faith, but they were unwarranted.

response to Shell.

Shell, you comment is the best point why the bans should be removed from my block log. You said: "if you don't want a record of you behaving poorly, don't behave poorly." It is what other think when they see the bans listed in my block log: she behaved poorly and was banned. The point is I was not behaving poorly. I have never abused any of these boards. Shell, may I please ask you to be so kind and to prove your words with the differences? In what way my "poor" behavior deserved the bans in question? Have I ever abused any of the boards in question to deserve such bans?

Thank you for bringing up a painful memories, Shell. I even know what wikihound of mine emailed you the link D= But what my talk page proves anyway? Whatever editing I have done at my talk page while being blocked has nothing to do with my conduct at administrative noticeboards.

Shell, I know I am not doing myself a favor, but you know what, I do not care. I am 99.99% positive the link was emailed to you, and I know who did it.

If you found the link yourself, one could assume that you read the link you found before posting it, and this edit does not look as you did, but this hardly matters. I could even apologize to you, but this also would not matter. I am simply very, very tired.

I even realize that I could end indefinitely banned as a result of this request, but this also hardly matters.

You still failed to respond what my talk page has to do with my bans on noticeboards? I mean, if instead of looking at my contributions on the boards I was banned from, you found yourself the link to my talk page, you should have been thinking how my conduct at my talk page is to help you to prove your point about me behaving "poorly" on the noticeboards. Listen, I am still grateful you're trying to prove something :-) Most admins say: "It is right because I said it" :-) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Amendment 2

  • Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
  • Details of desired modification

Statement by your username (2)

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by Tarc

I'm having a hard time believing what I'm reading here. Didn't we just go through a MASSIVE clusterfuck of a debate barely three weeks ago regarding Mbz1 and block logs? AGK put a 1-second block on mbz1, the purpose of which was to annotate the block log which, in his personal opinion, he felt was wrong. This was overturned by the community discussion at ANI (AGK was found to have acted in good-faith, though, no wrong-doing there), and the 1-second block was itself revdeleted by (I believe) Rd232.

I have never, in years of editing here, seen anyone obsess with their block log and worry about it being a stain or a badge of shame or whatever. I'd like to see a ban on mbz1 ever bringing this subject up to any policy board again, quite honestly. This is bordering on the tendentious. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum; unfortunately, mbz forgets the old "it takes two to tango" saying, that our Wikipedia Review exchanges are quite a two-way street of colorful comments, e.g. I am a "brainless anti-Semite", apparently. But this is neither here nor there.

Yes, Rd232 suggested that you head to WP:AN if you wish the block reviewed. Did you?

Again, this is a user who was blocked and topic-banned for a time, does not feel that either were deserved and wants the entries clarified or expunged. How many hundreds of sanctioned editors in 10 years of the project's existence feel the same way? Hell, I was baited into a 3RR war and earned a half-day block once, but I really don't care about it. Reject this, please, otherwise the floodgates will open to everyone who wants to scrub their block log of anything they think is unjustified. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request to amend prior case: Nishidani

Initiated by User:Ravpapa (talk) at 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Amendments
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Amendment 1

Statement by Ravpapa

This and the following request for amendment regarding Gilabrand replace the request that I submitted proposing a more general amnesty for blocked and banned editors in the IP topic area. A number of administrators commented in that discussion that they opposed a general amnesty, and would prefer a case by case discussion of amendments. Therefore I am submitting this and the following requests.

In a discussion of the state of the IP project here, it was the feeling of participants in the discussion that the blocking and banning of editors had done little to reduce the level of conflict on the project, while other measures (centralized discussion and 1RR restriction) had been effective. On the other hand, several of the participants felt that blocks had removed knowledgeable editors from the project on both sides, and had thus actually hurt, rather than helped, the project.

Nishidani is such an editor. Regardless of his often caustic and highly irritating comments on talk pages, he is unquestionably one of the most knowledgeable editors to tread in this sensitive topic area. His encyclopedic knowledge of sources was often astounding. His insights into article organization and language were always enlightening. True, he has an undisputed talent for aggravating his opponents; however, unlike other aggravating editors, he not only argued but also made important substantive additions to articles he worked on.

In the discussion leading to this request, editors from both sides of the IP dispute supported a lifting of sanctions against Nishidani and Gilabrand. I fear that by separating the requests, we will turn this into a partisan dispute, something I had hoped to avoid. In any case, I call upon editors from both sides to support the lifting of this ban, as an act of faith in the viability of our project and the belief that knowledgeable editors are a benefit to the project.

Statement by Nableezy

I think this is a no-brainer. In the WB/JS case ArbCom said that work in developing featured class articles in other topic areas would be looked upon favorably in a request for lifting the topic ban. Nishidani has done such work, helping bring the once very poor article Shakespeare authorship question to FA and improving a host of articles related to that, see for example his contributions at History of the Shakespeare authorship question, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, and Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Additionally, Nishidani has helped bring the article Al-Azhar Mosque up to GA quality and, if I ever spend the time needed to finish a certain section, nearly up to FA quality, working with an editor who was also banned in the WB/JS case (Jayjg) in doing so. See also his work at Barasana, which looked like this prior to him starting to work on that page, and like this after a few weeks of his working on it. He has also written, largely by himself, the articles Franz Baermann Steiner and Taboo (book).

Ill repeat what I wrote in the now archived "general amnesty" appeal, the restrictions put in place in WB/JS have not made the topic area better in any way. The main instigator of the edit-warring that brought that case about (NoCal100 and his socks, including another party to that case Canadian Monkey) continues to edit with impunity. Nishidani has not chosen to go that way; he has instead edited in a wide range of topics, helping to bring very poor quality articles to a much higher standard.

There are a lot of unsubstantiated accusations made below, some of which merit responses and some of which dont. I wont spend any time on that, but I would like to make one note. When Jayjg appealed his ban, you did not see editors who hold opposing views as him making such comments as the ones seen below. Those of us who disagree with Jay were silent. The opposition below comes entirely from editors who disagree with Nishidani and wish to maintain a ban on an excellent editor because it is to their advantage. The comments about Nishidani never having contributed any content to the topic area is so utterly ridiculous that I had not responded to it until now, and even now I will only provide a diff of an article that Nishidani is almost entirely responsible for. An article which would be more of a finished product if not for the fact that after spending a great deal of time and energy expanding the material on the Jewish history of the village, a sockpuppet tag team drove him off of the article when he turned his attention to the Palestinian history of the village. The topic area is filled with examples of Nishidani's work.

However, the appeal is not about what Nishidani did prior to being banned. Ynhockey's accusation that Nishidani has not worked on any good articles or featured articles while he was banned is demonstrably untrue; links in my original statement demonstrate that his accusation is false. Nishidani has indeed worked on featured content, helping to bring very poor articles, or non-existent ones, up to such a status. That those who oppose his views on the I-P conflict also oppose this request is not surprising, though it is disappointing that they chose to make such false charges against him to argue that his ban be maintained. I hope the committee will see through the comments of those that have been in conflict with him and instead make their decision based on the actual evidence. nableezy - 15:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Michael C Price

I agree with Ravpapa about Nishidani's "often caustic and highly irritating comments on talk pages" and "he has an undisputed talent for aggravating his opponents". Do we really want to let such a battlefield mentality editor loose again, without a clear acknowledgement of change of heart? I note that he regards himself as essentially innocent, in a recent statement blaming his ban on a "stray remark", and is presumably unrepentant. As Boris remarked "it is not easy to earn a permaban by a slip of the tongue". Indeed.

Note to Nishidani, yes, I am being selective in quoting Ravpapa - because I don't agree with the rest of his statement! :-)
I prefer not to be cited selectively. - BorisG (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

I support this amendment due to Nishidani's extremely helpful contributions at Shakespeare authorship question (SAQ). I started following the turmoil and article development at SAQ in October 2010 after seeing the matter raised at a noticeboard. I had no knowledge of Nishidani before then, and have never looked at P-I issues. At SAQ, I saw a tremendous amount of disruption from people wanting to promote the UNDUE notion that Shakespeare did not write his plays. Eventually, an ArbCom case resolved the disruption allowing the two main editors of the article (Tom Reedy and Nishidani), with several other expert editors, to continue article development with the result that it was promoted to FA in April 2011. Every step of the process was strenuously opposed by disruptive editors, and I observed that Nishidani remained calm and helpful despite a lot of provocation. Some recent discussions, now here, show some diffs of Nishidani falling short of CIVIL, but that was in May 2010 and involved an editor who was repeatedly misreading sources, and who is now topic banned for a year, while Nishidani has never been sanctioned regarding the SAQ area. Certainly Nishidani is now fully aware of the requirements for editing and civil collaboration, and there is no reason to maintain a topic ban.

Nishidani's knowledge is extraordinary, and he has excellent access to resources. Removing a topic ban is likely to assist the encyclopedia and cannot do harm since WP:ARBPIA allows sanctions to be readily applied should the need arise. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Michael, the diff you cite in evidence against me does not support the deduction you make from it, and I would appreciate you clarifying on what evidence you base your contention that I regard myself as 'innocent', esp. since in the diff I clearly admit that I did break the rules, (in reverting 4 editors) and that Arbcom exercised its proper right to punish me for my infringement. Namely, I wrote, contrary to your inference that I was protesting my innocence, that

'In a stray remark, I failed the test, and I cannot complain that I was asked to pay the penalty for that lapse. They were perfectly right technically.'

Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your reply, changing 'innocent' to 'essentially innocent' doesn't help, nor does selective quotation for advantage. The phrase 'stray remark' refers to this diff on the original Arbcom charge sheet. One is obliged to AGF which here, particularly in regard to the sockteam operating there, I did not. That is an actionable infraction technically, and therefore Arbcom was, I repeat, wholly within its remit and rights to punish me for it. One cannot be 'innocent', let alone 'essentially innocent' when one breaks a rule in witting disregard for sanctions. May I remind you that the proposer and those who second his suggestion, request an amnesty, not a retrial on some spurious late defence that I might be innocent of the original charge, as you appear to insinuate by suggesting I am here to protest my innocence. Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael. I know many are tempted to speedread in here, but you have, again, misunderstood. 'Selective quotation' refers to your use of my comments, in the diff you added, not your citations from Ravpapa and BorisG. I have no animus against those who might entertain a spirit of enmity against me in this place. I do tend to get my metaphorical knickers in a twist, or to be more gender-consonant, my bowels in a knot, when long arguments ensue from habits of misreading everything one's interlocutor says. May I Cromwellize this rather fiddlesticky exchange? I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken about what you think I said. Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to JClemens, I confess I do not quite 'wish' to return to the I/P area. Several fellow editors have expressed some confidence in the idea that, if I mend my scabrous tongue, and learn to refrain from, to misquote Sir Thomas Browne, abusing the incivility of my knee, I might prove helpful in the area they edit. However the vote swings, or I swing, I owe them a vote of thanks for their solicitude in expressing a desire to have me back as a colleague there. This motion imposes on me a sense of obligation, if the amnesty is passed, to work in a manner that will not disappoint their confidence.Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Cohen

I support this amendment. Nishidani is a very able and intelligent contributor to Wikipedia. Like JayJG, he has contributed high quality work in areas not covered by the ban.

Wikipedia is not some cult or extremist party where editors are expected to make obsequious replies to "just criticism". Shortly after the original punishment, Nishidani attempted to retire at a round number of edits which I think was 13K. he is now approaching 20K edits. He has not been blocked for over two years and does not attract much admin criticism. Although Michael note that Nishidani can be ascerbic, he has not produced evidence newer than the year-old edits in the other thread.

He is therefore someone whose presence is generally a benefit to the project and I think that Wikipedia can afford to take a small risk in lifting the topic ban in the same way that it did with JayJG with no subsequent problematic repercussions.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Broccolo

I strongly oppose this amendment. I agree that Nishidani is a veryable and intelligent contributor to Wikipedia, but he has violated his topic ban many times. For instance Nishidani inserted himself in the discussions directly related to I/P conflict, including introducing hate propaganda anti-Israeli cartoon

Besides it is my understanding that Nishidani was not very civil editing in other areas of the project:

  • [[1]] “Oh dear, man. Learn to read!...I'm presuming you are not an adolescent struggling in remedial classes in English, while you edit with furor here.”
  • [[2] – “Are you just acting DUMB?...a reflection that English is not your mother tongue."

I do not believe I/P topic will benefit from this user incivility. Broccolo (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of these edits are from this year and some were considered in the SAQ arbcom case without action being deemed necessary.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the differences that prove that Nishidani has violated his topic ban and was uncivil while editing in another topics. Here is the difference from this year that proves BATTLEGROUND behavior of the user. Please read what Nishidani responded when asked by another editor why he is commenting in the meditation he refused to join.
There is a difference between posting new sanctions and lifting old ones. Nishidani has repeatedly violated his topic ban, Nishidani has repeatedly demonstrated incivility and BATTLEGROUND behavior, and his topic ban should not be lifted. Broccolo (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything particularly battleground in that and I note it seems to have survived purges by the mediation moderators. It does explain why someone I had not heard of is taking interest in this thread.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ynhockey

As I said in the proposal from a few days ago, and say again now, the last thing the I–P area needs is bringing back problematic editors. There are enough problems as it is, and there is no doubt that this editor was not banned for nothing. Broccoli above presents a solid evidenced case why there is absolutely no reason to lift the ban.

Moreover, the condition for lifting the ban was that the editor continues to contribute to Wikipedia in a significant way. With due respect to Nishidani's contributions, he has not written any FAs or GAs or even DYKs lately (as far as I can tell), did not participate in the major backlog drives, and mostly continued his pattern of editing little but writing TLDR talk page comments that waste everyone else's time, only now outside of I–P (about 64% of Nishidani's latest 500 edits, for example, are on various talk pages, which isn't necessarily a problem, but for anyone who remembers the case and why Nishidani was banned, it is). I feel that Wikipedia has not lost a major asset by banning Nishidani from the topic area, and won't lose anything by not lifting the ban. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of quoting statistics, are you able to identify any problematic in the approx 320 talk page edits of which you speak? They would at least constitute more recent evidence than that put forward so far.--Peter cohen (talk)
I don't need to find "actionable" evidence because I'm not advocating that Nishidani be sanctioned, rather I'm asking that his sanctions not be lifted. There's a big difference. All I need to show is that Nishidani's editing pattern has largely remained the same. This in itself is a reason for not lifting the sanction. Also, please make further comments in your section per page guidelines. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

@Jclemens - The "portion of the community commenting here" consists mainly of editors heavily involved in the topic area Nishidani was banned from. There are only two editors I don't recognize from I/P articles (in which I am also involved, for the record). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you count the same too as me, their presence can be explained by one agreeing with Nishidani over the SAQ business and the other disagreeing with him over Ebionites.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the people who agree with him want the topic ban lifted, and those who don't, don't. And nobody else cares. What a surprise. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with Brewcrewer. In the little interaction I had with Nishidani, I found him to be combative, condescending and long winded. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brewcrewer

I have no idea why Nishidani would want to have the topic ban lifted. He does not appear to have any history of solid contributions to the Israel-Arab topic. All I remember about Nishidani are his huge blocs of text he added to talk pages in which little was understood save for his belittlement of other editors. I am open to being corrected of course. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Biosketch

I'm thoroughly opposed to the idea of granting amnesty to banned users, regardless of whose side they're against. I'm not familiar with either of the two editors on whose behalf the amendment is being sought – though I suppose I do indirectly bear the blame for Gilabrand (talk · contribs)'s ban) – but my opinion based on my experience in the I/P topic area thus far is that more editors should be sanctioned, not have their sanctions rescinded. The topic area is bad enough with the small number of disruptive participants already involved in it. Opening the door for even more disruption will be a disaster.—Biosketch (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BorisG

Biosketch has an interesting view. But: the vast majority of contributors to the I/P topic area have, shall we say, very strong views one way or the other. If we topic ban all of them, no one will be left to contrtibute. Thus any bans have to be weighed against past and potential contributions of the user(s) in question. In short: no users - no disruption, but also no content.

Even if it is true that more editors need to be banned, this needs to be consistent. I do not see that Nishidani is any more disruptive than a number of other editors. He is under such a drastic sanction because it was an ArbCom case. I think on this basis, Nishidani's ban needs to be lifted. He will certainly be under very close scrutiny.

One concern I do have is conflicting and confusing messages from Nishdani. On one hand, he says that he has retired partly because he was prevented from contributing to the I/P topic area. On the other hand, he says now he is not keen to return to this area. According to his talk page he is retired, but according to the user page, semi-retired. A bit confusing. BorisG (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The portion of the community commenting here seems to reasonably support ending Nishidani's topic ban. If there's anything missing, it's an assertion that this editor wants to edit the topic area and expresses the desire to do so in line with community guidelines... but I suspect that's implied. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Gilabrand

Initiated by Ravpapa (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC) at 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=430904012&oldid=430898742#Gilabrand
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Amendment 1

Statement by Ravpapa

This and the previous request for amendment regarding Nishidani replace the request that I submitted proposing a more general amnesty for blocked and banned editors in the IP topic area. A number of administrators commented in that discussion that they opposed a general amnesty, and would prefer a case by case discussion of amendments. Therefore I am submitting this and the preceding requests.

In a discussion of the state of the IP project here, it was the feeling of participants in the discussion that the blocking and banning of editors had done little to reduce the level of conflict on the project, while other measures (centralized discussion and 1RR restriction) had been effective. On the other hand, several of the participants felt that blocks had removed knowledgeable editors from the project on both sides, and had thus actually hurt, rather than helped, the project.

Gilabrand is such an editor. She has extensive knowledge of the topics on which she writes, and she is a clear and incisive writer. Moreover, she has contributed not only to IP topic articles, but also to articles on a variety of subjects. She has shown herself to be an editor genuinely interested in advancing the Wikipedia project.

This request for amnesty is in no way meant to condone the unconscionable use of an anonymous IP to continue editing when under topic ban. I am aware of the extensive damage that puppetry has wreaked on the Wikipedia as a whole, and in the IP area specifically. Almost universally, these puppets are single-issue editors, whose sole purpose is to introduce propaganda into the Wikipedia. But this certainly is not the case with Gilabrand. Her interest in contributing to Wikipedia as a whole is genuine, and if her passion led her astray in the past, I am confident that this ban has put enough of a scare in her that she won't do it again.

I urge editors from both sides of the IP divide to support this request. By supporting amnesty for Gilabrand and Nishidani, I believe we are showing a level of solidarity and of genuine interest in the well-being of the project that can move the project forward.

Several days later: I am a bit surprised and, I might say, disappointed by the total lack of interest that this request has generated. I suppose that this is because, as opposed to the other editor whose ban I proposed to remove (Nishidani above), this editor is completely noncontroversial. In any case, you can find some discussion of this request here. --Ravpapa (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bus stop

I support the amnesty suggested for User: Gilabrand based on her contributions to the project over a long period of time. She has done some work in some contentious areas of the project and that can lead to stress-related moves that can account for some of the trouble she has run into. I recommend another chance at getting things right. Bus stop (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jd2718

I appreciate Ravpapa's sentiment. Perhaps editors' reticence to comment is due, in part, to how recently Gila was found to be block-evading. That's three weeks between the AE thread and the first amendment request. It may seem too fresh. Jd2718 (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davshul

Although I had found Gilabrand's edits to be at times somewhat impetuous and a little inclined to take unilateral action on matters that should preferably have been the subject of prior discussion, there is no denying the enormous contribution she has made over the years to the IP and other projects, her deep knowledge of the subject and the hard work and effort expended by her in improving the quality and range of Wikipedia articles. I consider that an indefinite ban to have been harsh, taking into account her contribution, and support the amnesty proposed by Ravpapa. Davshul (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IZAK

Hopefully by now Gilabrand has learned her lesson and will be careful to abide by all WP policies and guidelines. She will then be able to contribute her great knowledge and skills to enhance WP. Even great people like Nelson Mandela and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ran afoul of their authorities but they then had the most productive years of their lives ahead of them after they were punished, jailed and banished as they came out mellowed and wiser for their experiences. WP should not "cut off its own nose to spite its face." Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

The filing party must notify the blocking administrator that this request has been submitted. Before we proceed, he ought to do that. With regards to the request, I oppose it. Gilabrand was topic-banned some months ago, and it was later discovered quite by accident (Gila signed a comment using an IP address) that he (or she?) was evading the ban by editing anonymously. No SPI was ever ran, so we don't know if Gilabrand also used registered accounts to evade the ban, but it was sock-puppetry and ban evasion that led to the block, not simple misconduct.

I haven't refamiliarised myself with the case, but I do recall that considerable disruption preceded the topic ban and the one-year block. It is my view that that is a moot issue, because in no case should an appeal be granted so soon, if at all, after such serious ban evasion. AGK [•] 10:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion by BorisG

Gilabrand needs to be given an opportunity to make a statement. She may be thinking doing so may violate her topic ban. Can we invite her to make a statement? - BorisG (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request to amend WP:EEML and WP:ARBRB

Initiated by Russavia Let's dialogue at 15:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Eastern European mailing list arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Case affected
Russavia-Biophys arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted
  2. Wikipedia:ARBRB#Russavia_restricted
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

Statement by Russavia

Both restrictions prevent two-way unnecessarily interacting between myself and Miacek, however, for the betterment of the project, it is necessary that the two of us be able to interact and collaborate onwiki.

Some interactions between Miacek and myself include the following: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and it can go on. I also commented at his request to have his topic ban lifted, because as Miacek mentions in that very request, relations between the two of us are normal. We have also been in occasional email contact, the last time just the other day, when I emailed him for fixing an issue on the Donavia article after he saw my note on my talk page.

All interactions between the two of us have been cordial, collaborative and consentual, therefore, it makes no sense to have bureaucratic restrictions in place which prevents two editors from interacting for the betterment of the project.

I am asking the Committee to amend the two restrictions to specifically allow interaction between myself and Miacek. And I foresee no reason why the Committee would not agree to this amendment request, as it serves as an example of what editorial interactions in EE topics should be like.

Statement by Miacek

Russavia has informed me of the amendment request and I do support this request. As Russavia has summed up above, the relations between two of us are constructive and there's no need for the clauses. In fact, only yesterday did I realize that it's still forbidden for me to interact with Russavia - my topic ban was lifted in the summer of last year, but the other clauses remain in force. All things considered, I see no reason for restricting our interaction anymore and ask for the clause to be lifted. In fact, I actually look forward to a point in the future when the clause could also be lifted viz-a-viz other ex-EEML members. Miacek 16:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Biophys

I support this request because Russavia and Miacek had no conflicts at the first place. They have always had good relations and share similar political views.

The bans between Russavia and other former EEML members can also be lifted if two conditions are met: (a) the sides did not violate their bans (this is standard), and (b) they demonstrated an ability to constructively edit the same article(s) (not prohibited per WP:IBAN), and especially such article(s) where they had problems in the past. Biophys (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with statement by AGK below. Biophys (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BorisG

I see no valid reason to keep this restriction in place. - BorisG (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

I am an administrator who recently enforced the EEML interaction ban, and who is active in arbitration enforcement, so perhaps my view (for whatever it's worth) would be useful. In my experience, there has not been any problem with contact between Russavia and Miacek, and in this case alone I would be happy to support an exemption being made to the general interaction ban. Having briefly checked the overlapping contribution history of the two users, I see no reason not to go with my general and initial impression. As an aside, in the event that an amendment precipitates similar requests from other editors who are affected by the interaction ban, I would caution against making similar exemptions without fully examining the history of the two users; off-hand, I can think of several editors between whom contact is disruptive to some degree. AGK [•] 21:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Motion

The remedies of the Eastern European mailing list and Russavia-Biophys cases are amended to permit bilateral interactions between User:Russavia and User:Miacek.

Support
  1. Proposed. Feel free to tweak or copy edit as needed. –xenotalk 14:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In the interests of collaborative editing, yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2

Initiated by Andries (talk) at 17:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Ed_Poor_2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines
  2. user:Ed Poor has not violated these guidelines for articles in category:Unification Church
  3. The talk page topic ban should be lifted
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Andries (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

Statement by user:Andries

I formally request the arbcom to lift the talk page topic ban for Unification Church related articles of user:Ed Poor. Ed Poor is well known to be a committed long time follower of the Unification Church which he openly admits. I can understand that and why he has a article topic ban for the articles related to the Unification Church. However it seems that Ed Poor does not even dare to edit some rather unrelated talk pages, because of the possible consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=prev&oldid=431407881


I check the talk pages of several Unification Church related talk pages and I saw no walls of texts or insults by Ed Poor. As far as I can see he has behaved constructively there or at least does no harm. Please understand that committed long time followers can give excellent comments on article talk pages. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Unification_Church

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Unification_Church_members


I know what I am talking about, because I am a critical former member of the Satya Sai Baba cult/new religious movement. I can give useful comments there. My topic ban was changed into an article only topic ban and I am now free to comment on the talk page. I can say that it was a relief to be able to comment there, because the article is about what was a big part of my life for nine years. I do not think I have done any harm with my comments and I have helped with sources.

I never had serious problems with Ed Poor regarding cults/new religious movements, though we worked together years ago. And we had some reason to get into a fight with each other because he was a current member and I am an apostate (critical former member).

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andries&diff=431409793&oldid=430884030


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=prev&oldid=430551195

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=431671329&oldid=431650555 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=330961567#User:Ed_Poor_-_POV_and_COI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ed_Poor_2#Log_of_blocks_and_bans


Thanks in advance to the arbcom members, who volunteered to do a difficult job, but have little chance to make all people happy.


Sincerely yours,

user:Andries Andries (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update 01 by Andries: two views of Ed Poor's edits

I think that there are two views on Ed Poor's edits which determine what diffs are relevant and who is involved in this matter.

1. Ed is a generally competent editor, but he does not see the limits of his competence and is biased in some subjects which has caused problems
2. Ed is a generally biased and incompetent editor who cannot see the difference between good and bad sources. As a result of that he has caused problems in some articles. In other subjects he has not (yet) caused problems.

If you believe in nr. 1, like myself, then his bad edits on climate change etc. do not matter and people not involved in Unification Church edits are not involved in this amendment. Andries (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment by Andries to request by user:Bishonen

I think the amendment is necessary because

  1. It is important not to discourage contributors in Wikipedia by giving them unnecessary editing restrictions
  2. Ed Poor can help to prevent mistakes in the article. Reputable source contain sometimes blunders. For example in the case of my former religious group, the New York Times (Keith Bradsher A Friend in India to all the world) made a blunder (leader supposedly silent in public) and both proponents and opponents agreed with each other not to include this statement in the article. I had a mistake corrected in the lead of the article Sathya Sai Baba by extensive arguing on the talk page. The article was linked to on the main page of Wikipedia, just after he passed away.
  3. Ed Poor has access to reputable writings about the Church (among others by David Bromley), so he can help with sources. (I personally disagree with Bromley's hurtful negative generalizations about apostates, but I understand that they have to be seen in the context of the great American cult scare of the 1970s and 1980s)
Andries (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Andries to user:Orangemarlin
Your reply is off topic. My request for amendment is only about the talk pages of Unification Church related subjects. Andries (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to declare what is on topic or not? It would seem that Mr. Poor's ongoing pattern of edits is highly relevant here. It seems proper to leave such decisions to the arbitrators. --69.165.135.150 (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 69.165. 135.150. Saves me from leaving an uncivil and very pointy reply. Now get registered around here. We need good editors who stand up to the POV.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply by Andries to comment by user:KillerChihuahua
ad 1. There are no diffs of bad behavior on Unifcation Church related talk pages. So the offense level was and will be zero if the topic talk page ban is lifted.
ad 2. For many obscure or foreign subject, one could find mainstream English language sources that make mistakes of blunders. But if better sources that contradict these statements then Ed Poor can help to get the blunders out if all contributors (both opponents and adherents of the Unification Church) agree. This is not breaking Wikipedia's core policies but using common sense and discernment when editing. The job of the contributors/editors is not to copy every statement in seemingly reputable sources.

Andries (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Andries to comment by user:JoshuaZ and Ed Poor

JoshuaZ and Ed Poor, I thought and still think that the only persons involved are the ones that dealt with the topic ban of the Unification Church. I also posted on the NRM notice wikiproject talk page. Nevertheless, I will inform the listed contributors who edit or edited the Unification Church related articles. Andries (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC) JoshuaZ, you did not complain about Ed Poor's edits regarding the Unification Church, so I thought and still think that you are not involved. Who else do you think is involved apart from the users listed by Ed Poor?Andries (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Statement user:Ed Poor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

In the whole time I've been topic-banned from Unification Church articles and talk pages, I have been asked many times to comment. Having thought that enough time might have passed, I responded as follows here, pointing out that I would be willing to join the discussion if no one objected. Unfortunately, this was not taken as a request to have the ban lifted but as an evasion of the ban.

Aside from that, I've simply been staying away. I'd like to return to editing, or at least to commenting when invited. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Ed Poor to Bishonen's list request

This is only three (not many), but if people are going to invite my input, why not let me respond? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Orangemarlin

NO fucking way. I could list another 25 recent edits of Ed Poor that would show his bias, quote-mining, use of non-reliable sources, and lack of understanding of NPOV, but to excuse date rape, to quote mine a right-wing Xtian article on contraception, and to try to state that there isn't a vast, solid, 99% support in the scientific community for Evolution is solid proof that Ed Poor should stay at Conservapedia, where, I am sure, his style fits well with their anti-science bias. Really, Ed Poor shouldn't be editing here at all, but I leave that to others.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request by Bishonen

I used to spar with Uncle Ed on these matters a long time ago, and am dubious about the usefulness of the proposed amendment. Specifically, Uncle Ed gives an example above (one) of an editor who invited him to comment on a talkpage, but describes the overall situation as "I have been asked many times to comment." Can we see a reasonably healthy list of some of those many times, please, Ed? That might amount to "Evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary". Nothing on this page has provided such evidence so far. Aunt Bishonen talk 20:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment on Andries' comment to me

I don't get it, sorry. I asked specifically for a list of examples (in other words, diffs) of some of the "many times" Ed Poor has been asked to comment, hoping that either you, Andries, or Ed would oblige, but that hasn't happened yet. Not sure what you're commenting on, but it's not on what I asked. Bishonen | talk 12:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment by 110.139.190.67 aka 125.162.150.88 ak by few former usernames

I've no involvement in any of this; have not even read it all... but a comment above by Andries caught my eye, and it warrants highlighting:

It is important not to discourage contributors in Wikipedia by giving them unnecessary editing restrictions.

110.139.190.67 (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:KillerChihuahua

I think the amendment is unwise because

  1. It is important not to encourage known POV pushers and edit warriors by removing controls which have clearly worked, keeping problems with a chronic violator down to what is virtually a no-offense level. Kudos to Ed for trying to follow the restrictions; I'm glad they are working.
  2. According to the requester, "Ed Poor can help to prevent mistakes in the article. Reputable source contain sometimes blunders." - meaning, Ed will change articles to align with non-reputable sources? Not a good idea. I remind Andries that Verifiability, not Truth, is the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia.
  3. Ed is welcome to contribute to non-restricted areas of the encyclopedia, until and unless such time as he indulges in his POV pushing to such an extent as he gets topic banned from them as well. I am sorry to sound so cynical, but past history, along with OM's linked edits above lead me to believe that is the path Ed might well be on regarding such subjects as evolution, global warming and contraception - all of which he continues to try to skew towards his own narrow view - see his edits of 13 May 2011, for example, trying to insert a creationist POV into Climatology. OTOH, I will be pleasantly surprised if he sees the light, mends his ways, and figures out what NPOV actually means. If that unlikely event occurs, I would happily support an easing of restrictions. It has not happened yet. If ArbCom in their wisdom decide to give this repeat offender a nth chance, I recommend leaving intact Remedy 1.1 that "He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking." so that if this gallant (or foolhardy, depending upon one's persuasion) attempt does not lead to improving the encyclopedia, but rather to the same tired tactics we've seen from Ed since the beginning, the mistake can be easily rectified.

Statement by William M. Connolley

I'm in favour of lifting the sanction. It is time-expired. I'd also be in favour of the sanction being reimposable (with a lower bar than normal, preferrably without recourse to arbcomm) if Ed Poor abuses the lifting. The main reason is the time-expired nature. Another reason is (that despite the faults in his editing viewpoint) Ed is generally very good about not edit warring, so taking out his problematic edits isn't hard.

Another reason is diffs like the one KC puts forward [7] (or perhaps the ones that OM does, though I'm not judging those): Ed has the same problems at other articles, and the topic ban (obviously) doesn't help there. But no-one (as far as I can see) is arguing that his ban should be tightened.

William M. Connolley (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

I'm familiar with Ed's work in other areas (mainly climate-related articles). Granted he tends to make the same arguments over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, but he's reasonably civil and doesn't edit war. I'd favor a lifting of the sanction with the knowledge that it could be swiftly reimposed at the discretion of any uninvolved admin if problems arise. (This is more or less in agreement with Killer Chihuahua's point 3.) Third Cousin Twice Removed Boris (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hodja Nasreddin

Support lifting the sanctions, basically per William and Boris. I saw his edits in several areas, and he is definitely a highly dedicated and well-intended contributor. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by JoshuaZ

I haven't given any real thought to the matter. I'm just noting my confusion about which editors Ed thought should be alerted. I filed the RfAr leading to Ed's sanctions but had not been notified. KC on the other hand has had almost no connection to that and is notified? This confuses me. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't file the amendment. Andries did, and I was puzzled about the same point. Shouldn't the regular contributors to the UC-related article have been notified? Like Kitfoxxe, Hrafn, Cirt, Borock, Steve Dufour, Exucmember, Marknw, Windl42 . . .? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Statement user:Hrafn

I must admit to being in three minds on this proposed amendment. Which is why, although I had been aware of this proposed amendment for some time, I had been holding off on offering a comment.

One the one hand, I have always found Ed Poor to be a problematical editor -- with an annoying mix of obdurate content (an inability to grasp WP:V and WP:RS, combined with a pervasive tendency to attempt to give equal validity to his personal views) and stylistic (a love of WP:QUOTEFARMs and a preference for bullet-points over prose) blindspots. On the other hand, I am not particularly comfortable with a permanent topic ban on anybody that extends to talk pages (it is after all not a restriction we normally impose, even on the most WP:COI editors). That smacks a bit too much of censorship. However, on the third hand, I can easily see how the inability to learn from his mistakes that Ed has demonstrated on article space could easily result in disruption even on talk (and can remember actually encountering such disruption on what was then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject intelligent design (now Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Creationism) at a time when Ed was topic-banned from Intelligent design [8][9] -- though that is some time ago now -- though nothing I have seen of Ed Poor since indicates to me that he has reformed).

Therefore although I would like to support this amendment, I cannot bring myself to to do so, even only extending to UC-related talk pages, without some fairly heavy behavioural probation attached. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cirt

Essentially I agree with comments about this issue by Bishonen (talk · contribs), Orangemarlin (talk · contribs), and KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement Steve Dufour

I am also a Unification Church member, I have known Ed well in various online forums but have not met him in person. We often have had differences of opinion about the WP UC articles, since in my opinion his writing is too much addressed to "insiders" and sometimes intended to provoke controversy -- as others have mentioned. I'm not sure what he feels about mine. I do think letting him comment on talk pages is reasonable. He often makes valuable contributions there. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Waiting for more statements/Discussion. SirFozzie (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm torn here. I'll be honest, I think that the amendment is problematic as I think there's a high probability of unhelpful behavior reoccurring. I'd be willing to go with what David F and Coren stated below for a lifting of the talk page ban, with the caveat that lapses in behavior will see it reinstated quickly. SirFozzie (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also waiting for any additional input. Based on the comments so far I am leaning against the proposed amendment at this time, as I am not persuaded that the problems that led to the topic-ban here have been addressed. I note with interest that the remedy that was being enforced here, from 2006, is of a type we have not used much, if at all, in more recent years; it may be useful to bear it in mind where relevant in future cases. I also would say in passing that while I understand that arbitration-related requests sometimes bring out strong feelings, and I do not favor enforcing an artificial or excessive veneer of faux civility, it will be appreciated if all commenters would maintain a reasonable degree of decorum on this page. Strident, nasty rhetoric does not help us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm all for lifting the talk page ban, with the understanding that any relapse is grounds for it being reinstated speedily. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that a lift of the talk page ban would not be unreasonable at this point. — Coren (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not then - trial lifting, and any complaints of disruption that are upheld (and a low threshold of disruption will be judged to be disruptive) will result in revocation of amendment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

The scope of the topic ban placed upon Ed Poor (talk · contribs) by Kafziel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 2009-12-10[10] as a result of enforcement of remedy 1.1 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 is amended to "any article related to Category:Unification Church, not including associated talk pages", effective immediately. Ed Poor is reminded that further disruption related to this topic may result in the topic ban or other remedies being re-imposed by the Committee.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I can accept this given that we are discussing only talkpages and given the last sentence, which hopefully won't become relevant, though it will be there if it is. (There is an argument that reimposition of remedies under the decision could come through an Arbitration Enforcement request rather than from the Committee, but I'll let that go unless the nuance interests other arbitrators.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Can give this a try. Shell babelfish 01:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mailer Diablo 13:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8.  Roger Davies talk 12:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Also per Newyorkbrad; the Unification Church talk page ban was placed as an AE-type action we should leave it open so it can be reimposed in the same way (should it prove necessary). –xenotalk 19:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Okay, as long as there is a low threshold for reimposition should problems arise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Recuse:
  1. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=436073668"